Ankith Salian - 80118190014

Tushar Varghese – 80118190018

Rohit Pavaskar - 80118190022
ASI Mahesh Reddy – 80118190028
Vijay Zanzrukiya - 80118190029
EMBA 21 | NMIMS SBM
The 80’s in the United States was unique, as it
came up on the backdrop of powerful feminist
movements of the 60’s and the 70s (to which it had
to keep pace) and the election of a new
conservative government under President Regan.
The condition such was unique as powerful women
dominated the decade, from Madonna to
Margaret Thatcher, and feminist activists created
impactful public campaigns addressing sexism in
popular music & art.
The decade rode on the second wave of feminism
which broadened the debate to include a wider
range of issues: sexuality, family, the
workplace, de facto inequalities, reproductive
rights and official legal inequalities. The Second-
wave feminism also drew attention to the issues of
domestic violence and marital rape and brought
about changes in custody laws and divorce law.
Feminist-owned bookstores, credit unions, and
restaurants were among the key meeting spaces
The 80s- brief of feminist movements
1981 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that excluding
women from the draft is constitutional.
1981 Overturns state laws designating a husband “head
and master”
1981 Sandra Day O’Connor is appointed to serve as the
first woman on the Supreme Court.
1984 organizations are forbidden by the Supreme Court
to opening any all-male organizations (Jaycees, Kiwanis,
Rotary, Lions)
The state of Mississippi belatedly ratifies the 19th
Amendment, granting women the vote.
1984 U.S. Supreme Court rules that law firms may not
discriminate on the basis of sex in promoting lawyers to
partnership positions.
1986 The U.S. Supreme Court held that a hostile or
abusive work environment can prove discrimination
based on sex.
1987 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that it is
permissible to take sex and race into account in
employment decisions even where there is no proven
history of discrimination but when evidence of a manifest
imbalance exists in the number of women or minorities
holding the position in question.
1989 The Supreme Court affirms the right of states to
deny public funding for abortions and to prohibit public
hospitals from performing abortions.
Source
https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/women
s-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/

and economic engines of the movement.

By the early 1980s, it was largely perceived that

women had met their goals and succeeded in
changing social attitudes towards gender roles,
repealing oppressive laws that were based on sex.
However, in 1982 adding the Equal Rights
Amendment to the United States
Constitution failed, having been ratified by only 35
states, leaving it three states short of ratification.

Another defining case which argued in the favour of women is the Ann Hopkins Case.
The case specifically argued in the favour of women in corporate leadership roles
Summary on Ann Hopkin

Family background: Her father was in the army who disapproved of army wives working.
However, Hopkins’s mother, worked as a nurse and believed her career was important. She
always motivated Hopkin’s to go above and beyond by teaching her things like “when you
shake hands, you should always shake hands firmly, and when you walk into a room, you
should walk in as if you owned it.” She basically learned from her childhood how to be an
outsider. This explains her personality.
Education: She graduated from high school in 1961at the age of 17. Majored in mathematics
at
in 1965. Two years later, she received a master’s degree in mathematics from Indiana
University. Hopkins then returned to Hollins College to teach mathematics. She was well
qualified.
Profession: Hopkins left her teaching position to join IBM. She also worked as a
mathematical physicist and managed a seven-person project for NASA’s Goddard Space
Flight Center. In 1976, Hopkins joined Touche Ross, a major public accounting firm, as a
systems management consultant. Hopkins joined American Management Systems (AMS) in
1978. In August 1978, Hopkins left AMS and began working at Price Waterhouse as a
manager. She had an excellent professional background.

Why Was Ann Hopkins not promoted?

Was she eligible to be a partner at PWC?
Ann Hopkins was not promoted due to the following reasons:

• Gender discrimination
• There were serious questions on her interpersonal and people management skills.
Few instances were:
o She had a violent argument with one of her colleague while doing an
assignment
o She used to criticize office colleagues
o In meetings, she used to bluntly turn down ideas/ suggestions from her team
mates and colleagues
• There was an instance where there was a discrepancy of $35,000 in one of the project
which she was leading. Initially she did not accept the mistake however later she did
admit that there was a mistake.

As per her academic qualifications, professional career and her work outcome, she was very
much eligible for the promotion.
 • She was highly educated as she did her master’s in mathematics from Indiana
University. Post master’s, she worked with one of the top companies like IBM and
Deloitte before joining PWC.
• She was also responsible for winning very lucrative contract worth up to $44 million
for PWC.
• Job evaluations praised her as “a terribly hard worker” and “one of the very best”
• She also got elected by senior partner and policy board through formal annual
nomination and review process.

It seemed ss per PWC the above parameters were not enough to promote her. They were
evaluating other leadership qualities as well to make her as a partner.

Were the eligibility criteria listed for nomination of partner fair,

transparent and ethically sound?
The selection process: The senior partners of PWC and a policy board would jointly elect new
partners through the formal selection process. This comprised of nominations for new
partners and voting by senior partners followed by review of candidature by admission
committee.

The candidature of new partners would also be backed by candidates past year performance,
quartile rankings etc.

Once nominations received, admission committee would visit individual candidate’s office for
further process of selection. This included voting for the candidature, evaluating candidate’s
strengths and weaknesses etc. Negative votes (evaluations) were given more weightage often
resulting in rejection of candidature or being put on hold.

Basis the outcomes of evaluation process, the committee would make recommendations on
each candidate to policy board. The board would then review committee’s recommendations
and pass the nomination of a candidate or ‘put on hold’ or reject the candidature. However,
board also had the power to override the admission committee’s recommendations and take
decisions basis the individual merit or firm’s business needs.
Was Ann Hopkins justified in doing what she did upon being denied
promotion?
Ann Hopkins, as she claimed, was denied partnership at the firm for two years in a row based
on her lack of conformity to stereotypes about how women should act and what they should
look like. Hopkins being then had four options.

1. She could leave the firm.

2. She could join the international area “on the hope of slim chance” she would be
proposed for partnership the next year.
3. She could continue working with Price Waterhouse as a career manager, without any
chance of partnership.
4. The final option was to leave the firm and initiate a lawsuit charging Price Waterhouse
with sex discrimination.
Ann Hopkins has resigned from the firm and filed a lawsuit against PWC. She had a proven
track record and healthy experience:

• OGS praised her “outstanding performance,” said it was “virtually at partnership

level,” and underlined her “key role” in connection with a large State Department
project.
• Hopkins had also billed more hours (2,442 hours in 1982 and 2,507 in 1981) than any
other candidate and generated more business than any other candidate considered
for partnership in that year.
• She had a strong track record with NASA and IBM
Hopkins was “the only candidate who was not admitted to Price Waterhouse - initially or after
being put on hold—who was criticized solely for deficiencies in interpersonal skills.” She was
the only woman among 88 candidates for partnership. Hopkins was at the bottom of overall
quartile rankings, and only 13 of 32 partners favored her admission, however, on the contrary,
the firm had admitted one candidate who had support from 14 of 30 partners and another
who ranked 39th of 42 in overall quartile rankings.

So, It was fully justified what she did on being rejected the promotion. A year after the
Supreme Court ruling, a federal district judge awarded her the partnership she was originally
denied at Price Waterhouse. However, by the time, she had already moved to the World Bank.
Later on, she returned to PWC and worked till her retirement in 2002. She led the team, which
had one of the most diverse and profitable in the company.
The Partnership Decision:

In March 1983, Ann Hopkins’s candidature was put on hold for a year for ‘allowing’ Hopkins
demonstrate the personal and leadership skills required for a partner. Hopkins was at the
bottom of the overall quartile in the selection process with only 13 of the 32 votes in her
favor.

However, Hopkins felt that this was not the only reason for her candidature being put on hold,
and that there was indeed sex discrimination in the selection process. Similarly situated men
as that of Hopkins in the selection process were given partnership. The firm had admitted one
candidate despite securing only 14 positive vote out of 30 and another person who ranked
39th of 42 in overall quartile ranking.

Conclusion:

Prima facie, the selection process for partners appeared fair. However, it may be otherwise
too. It is possible that policy boards could misuse its power of overriding admission
committee’s recommendations. The selection of two male candidates who were similarly
positioned in the selection process also creates ambiguity and raise questions on the fairness
of the selection process for partners.

Glass Ceiling

Was there a glass ceiling? From the point of view of PwC partners, definitely yes.

Outstanding Performer: Her team/department nominated her for partnership in August

1982. According to her nominating proposal, she was “virtually at partnership level,” and
suggested that she played a key role in connection with a large State Department project. No
other candidate’s record for securing major contracts was comparable. Hopkins had also
billed more hours (2,442 hours in 1982 and 2,507 in 1981) than any other candidate and
generated more business than any other candidate considered for partnership in that year.
The proposal strongly urged her admission to the partnership. But that was not meant to be.

Unfair opinions: Even when she had a proven track record, Hopkins was asked to behave and
dress more like a “female”. Her bossy demeanor was not well taken by the other Partners and
was frequently commented upon. Also, some of the partner were not okay with the fact that
a female will be at par with them. A bias.

Partnership ratio: PwC had approximately 2,600 partners, of which only 7 were female.
Hopkins 1982 partnership class included 87 other candidates; Hopkins was the only woman
in the group. This just tells that that either were not many females were who wanted to
become partners or there was a genuine bias in the selection process. The glass ceiling.